Pro-life inconsistency?
An Illinois pro-life organization has rated candidates beginning like this:
1 = Fully pro-life
1# = Rape and incest exception
2 = Not in full support of all pro-life issues
If 1 + # = 1 and not 2, this group is saying someone can hold rape and incest exceptions and be "fully pro-life."
Do you think a pro-life organization can hold this position?
Or do you think it is inconsistent for a pro-life organization to condone the concept that how one is conceived determines one's worth?
31 comments:
In short, yes.
One need not be 100% in agreement with your position to be "fully pro-life". I know pro-life voters would vote for such a person knowing that the Illinois GA will not in the foreseeable future pass an abortion bill with no such exceptions.
Remember, there is no moral or constitutional requirement that the public, or even voters be consistent, or even rational.
As long as you consent to voters making these kinds of decisions, be prepared to have these results, whether you perceive tham as conflicted or not.
Who decides "full" pro-life. I think too rigid and no pro-life legislation will pass, therefore no babies saved.
I hold rabid pro-lifers accountable for the murder of babies that could have been saved by compromise legislation that moves the ball toward the goal of no abortions.
I'm a one step at a time pro-lifer and I will save more babies than you.
Jill-
I don't think an organization can be considered 'fully pro-life' if they hold a rape/incest exception.
Rape considerations only take into account the state of the mother which is essentially an extension of abortion as birth control/convenience usage. There is likely nothing wrong with the child caused by the particulars of the conception.
Incest might have more of a rationale behind it in the interest of genetic issues but severe genetic defects have a way of 'working themselves out' through miscarriage, still birth or death at or soon after birth so abortion should not really be necessary. As an aside, I know someone who adopted an incest offspring and that child suffers from no known problems so adoption is a definite possibility.
In the interest of discourse, I am not pro-life at all but, given the definition of 'fully pro-life', I cannot see how one could consider themselves to be so if they accept abortion in any case.
-Gish
yes, but on Mondat 1 + 2 may = #
but only if # -1=incest - 2
so I say what the $#%*
If we're going to have a rape exception, why not a fetal health exception? Why not a mother's mental health exception? Why not a "quality of life" exception? If we're going to start drawing lines as to when it is and isn't ok to kill an innocent child, what makes one line more "pro-life" than another?
How about we just say that NO, it isn't ok to kill a baby no matter how strongly the reasons tug our heartstrings. Remember that the baby is still innocent and had NO CONTROL over the circumstances of his conception.
PS, I agree with incremental legislation. Better to save one baby than none. But better yet to save all the babies -- even those conceived due to rape.
Is there a link to these ratings?
I think that all abortion is wrong unless the mother's life is in danger, but I think that she would have a legal right to get an abortion if she were raped as she did not consent to the act that made her pregnant (ie just as adults have the legal right to have consenting pre-marital sexual intercourse even though it is morally wrong). That being said, pro-Life organizations should respond to this by raising money to pay women who got pregnant by rape a few thousand or something to not abort the fetus and instead give it up for adoption. I would gladly contribute whatever I could to such a fund.
Jill, who are you supporting for governor?
Nothing quite like forcing a woman to do something with her body AFTER she was raped...I always love those who see things so black and white.
One could also argue that a "totally pure" pro-life position would oppose all abortion, even to save the life of the mother. Because, in that instance, the mother and doctor are taking a decision that, if left to God (or nature, if you prefer), might result in both mother and baby surviving...even if it would take a miracle to happen that way.
Opposing all abortion, with a rape or incest exception, might also be argued to be a fully pro-life position - if you hold the mother accountable for only the acts of conception under her control. It could be argued that forcing a mother to carry a baby to term, when she was not a party to the decision to conceive, represents a form of slavery or involuntary servitude. Whether the evil of involuntary servitude outweighs the evil of abortion is a question with no "pure" answer.
BORING. Three weeks away from the election and we are reading this tired garbage. Take your abortion debate back to a 1980s after school special.
Michelle,
How would you feel if forced to carry to term the child of the man who violently raped you? Think about it. Seriously.
How would I feel? Extremely pissed off. At the person who raped me -- not at the innocent child who had nothing to do with my rape. That's why the only reasonable reaction to a rape is the imprisonment of the rapist, NOT the death of an innocent child.
And to the person who said:
"Opposing all abortion, with a rape or incest exception, might also be argued to be a fully pro-life position - if you hold the mother accountable for only the acts of conception under her control."
I only hold the mother accountable for actions under her control. She is not accountable for the rape, and thus is guilty neither of fornication nor adultery should she be married. She's done nothing wrong. But the decision of whether or not to murder the unborn child that she did not choose to conceive -- that decision is wholly within the limits of her control, and for that decision she should be held accountable. Murder is wrong, even if someone else has wronged you.
"It could be argued that forcing a mother to carry a baby to term, when she was not a party to the decision to conceive, represents a form of slavery or involuntary servitude. Whether the evil of involuntary servitude outweighs the evil of abortion is a question with no "pure" answer."
Slavery is a VERY good analogy, especially for Christians who have been commanded not to worry if we are slaves, since we are freedmen in Christ.
But the analogy can be used for secularists as well. If a man is enslaved, one might argue that he has a right to kill his captor and become free. Self-defense, if you will. But does the enslaved man have the right to kill the children of his captor? Or an innocent bystander? How about his fellow slaves?
How about the example of a woman given in marriage in a society where such things are arranged by the parents without the children's consent? Does this woman have the right, once she realizes she would be free, to kill her husband and children in order to flee?
What if a man is unfairly convicted of a crime he did not commit, and is sent to prison? Does he have the right to kill the guards to escape?
There simply is no parallel in society where we claim the right to kill someone who not only poses no immediate threat to our safety, but who is completely innocent of any wrongdoing.
I have no problem feeling compassion for women in this untenable position, and I would not question a woman who chose to give up her "rape baby" for adoption. But there simply is no right to kill an innocent person based on the immoral actions of another.
Nice position, Michelle.
I assume that you are also against abortion even when it is necessary for the health of the mother?
I assume that you believe that a woman with cancer should avoid treatment and let the cancer grow, since doing something about it might hurt the fetus?
If you are going to be consistent, be really consistent. Don't stop short. Who cares about the mother -- we have an innocent fetus to protect.
Right?
Jill -
A very thoughtful post. As you know, I am pro-choice, but I've always believed that once you accept the proposition that "human life begins at conception", you must conclude that all abortion is murder, except where carrying the child to term poses an imminent threat to the life of the mother.
Of course, I've also always believed that those who claim to believe that all human life is sacred do very little to demonstrate that belief after the child is born. I see very little commitment to expanding adoption, health care, or education from so-called "pro-life conservatives," and I think you'd have alot more credibility if your agenda weren't so narrowly contorted to serve partisan Republican interests.
Yellow Dog:
In all seriousness, if somebody is going to take the view that life begins at fertilization, then why have the "life of the mother" exception?
If you seriously belief the fetus is human, why should it be sacrificed rather than the mother? Why must the mother win the battle rather than the fetus?
A true anti-abortion view would dictate that mothers with cancer be denied chemo or radiation, since that would injure the fetus.
Of course, that is why I don't take the radical view, but that is another matter completely.
JIll, I may have missed your position on the death penalty, but I am curious, given the above debagte, what it is.
Skeeter, before I answer your question, let me ask you one. Are you conceeding that my position is the logical one regarding rape cases, or are you merely attempting to divert the discussion to prevent the truth of our argument from being noticed?
It is my position that in every instance everything possible should be done to save the life and health of both mother and child. Both are equally valuable as human beings, and both should be treated as worth saving. Sometimes the specific details of this will be difficult to discern, that is true. Difficult choices will have to be made -- all beginning with the basic assumption that the PURPOSE of medicine is to save lives, not to sacrifice them.
Yellow Dog, on what do you base this presupposition? Do you have any study or statistical analysis showing that pro-lifers tend to oppose adoption, health care or education? Or is it merely a stereotype?
I myself believe that the church has an imperitive moral obligation to ensure that the needs of the congregation and community are met, care passionately about improving education, and have made every effort to adopt a child to prevent his death through abortion.
Most prolifers I know care deeply about improving quality of life for all -- both in the present physical world, and the hereafter.
MP,
That's nice, but it is not really responsive, is it? If you believe in the strength of your position, as you claim to, then my question should be easy for you.
Let's talk about the chemo example. Let's assume a pregnant woman is diagnosed with cancer. Chemo is necessary to save the mother, but will probably kill the fetus.
What do you do in that case?
Diversion it is, then. If you are afraid of the discussion at hand (rape exceptions), just admit it.
I'm not a doctor, which means I do not know all of the relevant medical information. I don't know if it is possible to treat cancer in another manner that will not harm the baby, if it is possible to somehow shield the baby from the chemo, if the child is old enough for premature delivery... I know nothing about the medical specifics of this, and don't expect that I should be the one making decisions like that. I would not make it illegal for doctors to make such decisions -- only for them to take measures for which the intent is to kill a child. There's a major difference between treating a woman for cancer and aborting the child before beginning chemo. The difference is in the intent.
How about a situation I do understand -- ectopic pregnancy? Even the Catholic Church holds that surgery to remove an ectopic pregnancy is moral, because the intent is to save the mother, not to kill the child. If it were possible to do anything to save the child (say, implanting it into the womb), one would be morally obligated to do so since, as stated, the intent is to save, not kill.
Another example, how about a woman who is 28 weeks pregnant and has developed a deadly pregnancy related condition? The question between pro-choice and pro-life in such a scenario rests on whether you choose flat-out abortion, or pre-mature delivery with every effort made to save the baby once born.
I am not suggesting that a woman be forced to accept death. That, like forcing her child into death, would be wrong. The question is whether we kill the child or try to save both.
To put it another way, if the mom and baby were in different beds, no one would ask which the doctor should save. The answer is obvious -- that he should do his best to save both.
If one patient dies, that is life. It's sad, but it can't be avoided. But if the doctor is found to have intentionally witheld medical treatment for one, or worse, to have intentionally killed one, that's murder.
A "life of the mother" exemption makes sense because when you have two lives threatening each other it makes sense to save the one most likely to live- the mother. And anyhow, if the mother's life is being threatened, not killing the baby and having her die may mean that they both die.
Because rape (including incestuous rape) is so traumatic, I guess you could sometimes say that carrying the baby as a constant reminder could threaten the mother's life. So I guess I could deal with a legal exemption so that people could choose in that situation, although I hope that they'd choose to go with the attitude presented by Michelle Potter.
Ms. Potter,
So now you are accepting that there may be some moral reasons for abortion.
Is that correct?
No. I am not. I am saying that intentionally killing a baby is NEVER RIGHT. I am saying that the unintentional death of a baby due to efforts to save the mother's life is sad, but sometimes unavoidable.
Let me give another example. When 12 weeks pregnant with my youngest child, I developed a potentially fatal blood clot in my leg. The doctors wanted to prescribe a blood thinner to help break up the clot. There was a chance of this medication hurting my baby.
The purpose of this medication was to break up the blood clot -- nowhere in the intended usage of the medicine was "abortion." In fact, measures were taken to avoid an accidental miscarriage, such as not prescribing a different drug which would have surely caused one. If an accidental miscarriage had happened anyway, would that mean I had an intentional abortion? Or would it mean that my baby was unintentionally miscarried despite to efforts to save us both?
Personally, I chose to stop taking the medication as soon as I found out that the "obstetrician" who told me it was safe wasn't an ob at all. I could no longer trust his assessment of whether my child was safe, so I left his care and chose an alternative treatment. Today my baby and I are both alive and healthy.
That's MY idea of the moral way to deal with such a situation -- never purposefully kill, always try to heal, rest in God's love if death occurs despite your best efforts.
Michelle Potter said...
"No. I am not. I am saying that intentionally killing a baby is NEVER RIGHT. I am saying that the unintentional death of a baby due to efforts to save the mother's life is sad, but sometimes unavoidable."
So you are claiming that the mother should just be given the chemo and the fetus allowed to die an ugly death from poisoning, rather than a quick one through abortion?
Are you under the impression that you can frustrate me and drive me away by mindlessly asking the same questions over and over? Because I have five kids and the Disney channel plays the same three episodes of the Wiggles every day. I'm a very patient woman.
You asked me once again what should be done in the case of cancer. I told you that I can't make a decision on that because I don't understand the medicine, that it should be left up to doctors who actually know what they are talking about as long as their goal is to heal and not kill. You can ask me a hundred times, and the answer will still be the same.
[Wiggles]Fruit salad, yummy yummy! Fruit salad, yummy yummy![/Wiggles]
MP:
I am not trying to frustrate you. I am trying to get a straight answer. However, I don't blame you for evading the question. It is the right thing for you to do. People don't like to face the contradictions in their views, and of course you are no exception. Better to evade then to face reality.
If I claimed to have strong views but could not back those views I might evade the question also.
"The goal is to heal." What an evasive response. It is a nice but meaningless platitude, but I'm sure you know that.
I'm sure you also know that a fetus cannot survive chemo.
Despite that -- despite your talk of strong views -- you cannot bring yourself to admit that at times, there must be a balance between the life of the mother and the child and that, as unfortunate as it may be, at times abortion is the best and most moral option.
Better to claim ignorance, as you are doing, than deal with the reality of the situation.
Here's a tip though: Chemo is not good for a fetus. A fetus exposed to chemo will not do well.
People like you, with your allegedly strong views, will have two options:
1. Tell the mother it is too bad, but she will have to deal with her cancer on her own even if it slowly kills her and even if she could otherwise be saved, because you believe that the fetus is a full human with all the rights thereto, and it cannot be sacrificed for the life of the mother [ergo, no chemo]; or
2. Allow that fetus to be slowly poisoned to death by the chemo.
Those are your options, since your alleged "pro-life" views would not permit an abortion.
Now tell me again about your extreme pro-life positions. Tell me again how your strong morality will never permit an abortion.
Or the third option: LET DOCTORS WHO KNOW WHAT THEY ARE TALKING ABOUT MAKE THAT DECISION. Strange, I'm sure I said that at least once.
Post a Comment